“…I see some good things in the LdS Church and I see even more in Mormon Culture. There’s also much – particularly in the former – that, in my opinion, is really, really bad and needs to change. Never-the-less I’m just crazy enough to believe that there must be a way to keep the good and jettison the bad…

However, to get there from here the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, from my perspective, must reform. And THAT, at least for me, is still a work in progress. That’s to say, it’s a work in progress for me because while I think I have an idea as to what end state might look like, I know that I’m not alone in this vision and I find the ideas and thoughts of others often more interesting than my own – hence the need for ongoing dialog.”

At this point you’re probably wondering, “Sounds interesting but exactly what kind of ’reform’ are we talking about? And what kind of ‘end state’ do you have in mind Mr. Smarty Pants?”

Fair enough.

What follows is a bit “yesterday’s news” since I’ve already posted it on the Internet a few times[1], but never-the-less to get that “ongoing dialog” started I offer to you, for your consideration, my answer to the following question:

Q: If you were suddenly called to be the leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what, if anything, would you change?

* Decanonize both the LdS and RLDS versions of “Doctrine and Covenants” and reclassify them as historical records useful for better understanding Joseph Smith and the Early Church but nothing more than that.

* Release all endowed LdS from their Temple oaths and vows and encourage them to share their Temple experiences with the public so that all the silly rumors and speculations are dealt with once and for all. Oh, and whoever wishes to can feel free to remove their Temple Garments.

6} Remind LDS Missionaries and parents of Missionaries that such service should be completely voluntary and that should be no stigma for not serving a mission. I would also encourage any active Missionaries who felt like they were pressured, manipulated, or coerced into going on a Mission to return home – at Church expense.

7} Apologize to ExMormons and encourage them to try the “New, Improved and Biblically based” Mormonism.

9} Lobby all Southwest State Attorney Generals to actively begin prosecuting Polygamists within their states.

10} Mission the Relief Society with developing the means and methods of helping the women and children who want to escape from Polygamist Communities to do so with LdS Church support – including financial support for a set period of time.

12} Consolidate LdS meeting houses to accommodate the smaller attendance base and sell extraneous real estate to back fill for lost tithes and offerings.

And if I managed to dodge all the neo-Danite Assassination attempts as well as the stress from the angry public outcry and condemnation of splinter groups breaking off and reorganizing in every which way (like they did when the RLDS reformed) I might even live to see all this fulfilled!

NOTES[1] This “revisited” edition is far more refined and polished than prior versions. In addition I have annotated where I thought it appropriate, relevant to the discussion, and/or there’s been a “sticking point” in past discussions. I hope that the extensive hyper-linking doesn’t distract too much from the overall narrative and I apologize in advance to those who feel that it does.

[2] My intention here is to enable the LdS Church to gain from the “lessons learned” by the RLDS/Community of Christ – which I feel is headed in a generally positive direction and ‘further up the road’ than the LdS Church. However, on this point RLDS/CoC Historian John Hamer has remarked:

“On the point about merging the LDS and Community of Christ churches, that’s really like asking Taiwan to “merge” with China. Both Taiwan and China are legitimately Chinese countries and heirs to the China that existed before WW2. However, like Taiwan, we’re a tiny democracy, and like China, they’re a giant authoritarian regime. Even if the bigger polity was supposedly going to be absorbed into the leadership structure of smaller, i.e., if the Chinese Communist Party and the LDS hierarchy were abolished and the merged groups were restructured under the leadership of the smaller party, the smaller groups (Taiwan and the Community of Christ) wouldn’t have anything near the capacity to reform or assimilate the larger group.

That said, I do think that the Community of Christ is being called to provide a spiritual home for liberal Mormon seekers who are disaffected from their church’s authoritarian leadership and its sexism.”

If you jettison the Bible from the “blend” aren’t you reaching in and tearing out the heart of the Restoration from the institution making essentially a social club or philanthropic organization just like all the other umpteen other such organizations?

So your critique of my list is that we would end up with just another Liberal Protestant denomination and while I agree with your assessment that I hold out hope that we would end up with some distinctly different (like the CoC for example – more on that later).

Couldn’t one critique your stance as just leading to another social club, or philanthropic group – only one without any unifying principles to define it in the marketplace of ideas?

And, once again, how do you keep the good parts, jettison the bad parts, and not destroy the institution in the process?

Personally, I think that the Community of Christ has found the right “balance” here:

“Scripture
Scripture is writing inspired by God’s Spirit and accepted by the church as the normative expression of its identity, message, and mission. We affirm the Bible as the foundational scripture for the church. In addition, Community of Christ uses the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants—not to replace the witness of the Bible or improve on it, but because they confirm its message that Jesus Christ is the Living Word of God. When responsibly interpreted and faithfully applied, scripture provides divine guidance and inspired insight for our discipleship.
(see http://www.cofchrist.org/ourfaith/faith-beliefs.asp ; retrieved date of post)

Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not about to go get baptized into the CoC but I do think that their “lessons learned” can be of great benefit to transitioning the LdS Church from a man exalting authority cult (more on that in later blogs) to something better than it is right now.

This isn’t as easy as it seems at “first blush” is it? It is admittedly a Gordian knot!

Anonymous

Um, not really. I’d say the core was restoration in and of itself – of doctrine and of authority. Joseph Smith believed in the Bible as he believed it came from the authors themselves, not the current version with plain and precious parts removed which is why he spent his life revising it (granted that the JST is considered interesting for study not authoritative scripture). The Bible itself can be considered inspired and inspiring, but objectively is not historical (even if it does refer to some people who probably existed) and came to be in large part from stories of shepherds drinking grog around the fire. I see no value in pretending the Bible is magical compared to other works simply because it’s older. I also think there’s tremendous power in the principle that God speaks to many nations across many times – including in our day and age. That should be a great motivator in remaining sensitive to others and being instruments in His hands based on today’s circumstances instead of superimposing our contemporary western preferences on what is ancient Eastern writing. I am not suggesting the Bible be jettisoned, I simply treat it like other scriptural works — that we recognize what scripture is, what it is not, and that useful things even today can qualify as scripture.

I don’t see how you get rid of modern prophets, ongoing revelation, divine investiture, and distinctive theology and not tear the heart of the restoration. Churches ARE social clubs of a sort, they happen to claim a “special” place, but they are social/charitable organizations.

I’ve already given a few of my wishes. Others would be less correlation, more local control, more local flexibility on meeting structures across various cultures, more direct community involvement (including ability to donate money as well as man-hours to community efforts), etc.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

That you – that’s very helpful.

YOU WROTE
“I don’t see how you get rid of modern prophets, ongoing revelation, divine investiture, and distinctive theology and not tear the heart of the restoration. ”

MY RESPONSE
Indeed. And, to clarify, I didn’t suggest that. That was, in fact, covered by implication by this item on the list:

* Restore the New Testament charismata (Spiritual Gifts) to the LdS Church making it Pentecostal as it originally was.

I am a Restorationist and I’ve never been Mormon. I believe in modern prophets, ongoing revelation, divine investiture, distinctive theology, AND the restoration. However, not the way that the LdS Church defines and practices them.
It’s always important to remember that Mormonism took existing Christian words, terms, and forms and then changed the definition and/or content. And that’s the case here too.

All Restorationist groups originally came out The Caine Ridge Revival and then splintered. The Mormons are linked through both the Methodists and Campbellite wings of Caine Ridge – but that’s another blog for another day.

In my church we have modern prophets, modern apostles, ongoing revelation, divine investiture and distinctive theology AND we’re restorationist. And we’re not alone, most, if not all Charismatic and Pentecostal Churches do.

Yes, much clearer indeed. “Restoration” is used differently depending on context. There is of course the “restoration” branch off of Protestantism in the early 19th century. Authors within the Latter-day Saint movement also refer to that tradition as a “restoration” tradition. Certainly Joseph Smith was influenced by the restoration and reform movements of his era, but that doesn’t make the LDS branch a direct, organic part of the Cambelite restoration movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations do a good job explaining how both are properly restoration yet distinct. Matters of authority, for example, are more along Catholic or Orthodox lines for LDS traditions, which is to say the belief that they have it and others do not.

And it also helps to understand that you are not LDS or within the various LDS traditions but simply have ideas on what they should change. That is fine. I have ideas on how Catholicism, the Southern Baptists, etc. should change as well. And of course it’s all well taken with several grains of salt. Faith is subjective and personal and what works for one won’t for another and vice versa.

One’s perspective influences what to make of the various suggestions. For example, the suggestion that spiritual gifts be brought back presupposes both that they are no longer extant (which I know from my own personal experience to be false) and that man has control over them such to restore, yet we know such belong to God to be administered to His purposes. Similarly, the notion that a person in church A understands scripture differently than church B is hardly surprising, and is no reason for church B to be obligated to change.

An interesting discussion. Thanks for hosting!

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

You’re very welcome.

However, if you will indulge me, I’m going to attempt to deepen your understanding on a few points a bit before I let you go:

YOU WROTE
” Restoration” is used differently depending on context.”

MY RESPONSE
Sorry but that’s simply not correct. The way that the 19th Century Restorationists and the way that Joseph Smith defined “the restoration” were, in fact, identical. In all cases the term meant, “…the belief that a purer form of Christianity should be restored using the early church as a model. Fundamentally, “this vision seeks to correct faults or deficiencies [in the church] by appealing to the primitive church as a normative model.”
(again see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_primitivism )

And, of course, in all cases some form of corrupting influence – be it Catholic or Protestant – was seen as the cause of the current “apostasy” – be in part or in total.

Thus Caine Ridge was viewed as a kind of “reboot” by the Holy Spirit to restore the Christian Church back to it’s pure, pristine, and uncorrupt state.

Smith got his own view of the restoration through the Methodist Revival Meetings that he attended. Ironically, some of the rhetoric from these meetings can be found in the Book of Mormon as Grant Palmer, who studied the 19th Century Methodist Revivals as part of his PhD Studies at BYU points out:

“Jacob, Enos, Mosiah, Alma 1-42:
These books are dominated by evangelical Methodist Camp Meeting, terms, practices, patterns and doctrines of which Smith was so familiar. The eleven main Book of Mormon preachers between Jacob and Alma II reflect in every way, what one would expect to find when making a study of the Second Great Awakening preachers of Smith’s era.
( http://www.mormonthink.com/gptimeline.htm ; retrieved date of post)

The rest came from Sidney Rigdon, who prior to joining the Latter-day Saints was a Campbellite minister – which leads us to . . .

YOU WROTE
“… that doesn’t make the LDS branch a direct, organic part of the Cambelite restoration movement…”

MY RESPONSE
Citing from sources that reference modern Mormonism – which is NOTHING like the Mormonism of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young – as you did is fallacious. That’s presentism.

Rather one must get into the “way back machine” and set the dial for 1827-1830 when Mormonism was referred to as “Campbellism Improved” because it was so closely aligned with the doctrine of the Stone-Campbellite Restoration. To readers in 1830, the Book of Mormon resounded with Campbellite rhetoric. Please consider the following:

The following list summarizes Campbellism doctrines, and indicates where they can be found in The Book of Mormon:

1. A Great Apostasy necessitating a Restoration of the doctrines and practices of New Testament Christianity.

Campbell referred to this as a restoration of the “Ancient Order of Things.” Rigdon referred to it as a “restoration of all things.” References in The Book of Mormon include the following: 1 Ne 12:11; 13:26; 2 Ne 26:9-10, 20; Hel 13:5.

2. Restoration and Gathering of the Jews.
– 1 Ne 15:19-20; 2 Ne 29:4; Restoration and Gathering of the House of Israel — 3 Ne 29:1.

3. Imminent millennial reign of Christ,
– 1 Ne 20:26.

4. Campbell’s followers used the “Bethany dialect,” and especially what was referred to as the “word alone system.”

Mosiah 26:15-16 reads:
Blessed art thou, Alma, and blessed are they who were baptized in the waters of Mormon. Thou art blessed because of thy exceeding faith in the words alone of my servant Abinadi. And blessed are they because of their exceeding faith in the words alone, which thou hast spoken unto them.

5. Sacrament prayer and partaking of the sacrament bread and wine as a memorial rite in frequent gatherings.
– Moroni 4:3, 5:2, 6:6.

This is relevant because of Smith’s documented attraction to Methodism, even during the translation process.

7. Adult immersion for the remission of sins as the central ordinance of the Gospel.
– 3 Ne 11:26.

This elevation of the importance of baptism happened at a time when practically no other group of Christians made baptism that important or so easy to obtain. Calvinist churches demanded proof of a spiritual conversion experience before acceptance into a congregation. Campbellites merely asked for a statement of belief, and baptism was possible at a moment’s notice. In Mormonism, acceptance of The Book of Mormon qualified a new convert for immediate baptism, quick confirmation, and speedy ordination of male converts. This was a useful strategy for rapidly acquiring new converts among those who had been turned down for membership in other faiths.

Ideally, data on beliefs, such as the information on Campbellism summarized above, should be analyzed in the context of the major beliefs of each of the Christian sects in North America 1820-30. The relative uniqueness of each belief or practice could then be determined. However, in the absence of such data, it is reasonable to assume that those best qualified to compare Mormonism with the beliefs of other religions at the same time and place would be those living in that same time and place. Among them, Mormonism was quickly branded “Campbellism Improved.”
(see: http://www.mormonthink.com/mormonstudiesrigdon.htm#16 ; retrieved 2011-03-28 )

YOU WROTE
“For example, the suggestion that spiritual gifts be brought back presupposes both that they are no longer extant (which I know from my own personal experience to be false) and that man has control over them such to restore, yet we know such belong to God to be administered to His purposes.”

MY RESPONSE
If you want to see the form and types of spiritual gifts practiced by Mormonism up to the Early 20th Century one would need to leave the local Mormon Chapel and walk across the street to the local Pentecostal Church.

I know that this shocks many modern Mormons (and probably offends far more) but it is a historical fact. However, rather than arguing the point with Mormons any more, I just give them the links and say, “If you love the truth, click. If you don’t don’t – it’s your choice. Red pill, blue pill, you choose”

And BTW, the Community of Christ still practices the spiritual gifts as described in the historical record – including tongues speaking.

Anonymous

In other words, turn Mormonism into yet another liberal Protestant denomination. I like some of the list, like embracing history and more transparency, but in terms of distinctive beliefs I don’t see why I wouldn’t just join an existing denomination if I wanted that, there’s hardly a shortage of liberal Protestant traditions.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Fair enough.

After all, the Community of Christ is (paraphrasing from John Hamer) more like the liberal wing of the Episcopal Church USA than the Southern Baptists. However, when the Worldwide Church of God reformed they ended up more like the Southern Baptists than than the Episcopal Church USA.

It’s hard to say which way the LdS Church might go because at the moment the leadership seems to have a foot in both the fundamentalist and liberal camps. I could cynically say that they tend to go with what “sells” but that would probably be too harsh.
And of course at the moment my list is “fantastic” because it’s more fantasy than practical reality.So, that said, what’s on your list?

Anonymous

I guess that’s the ultimate question, idealistic toward what ideal? The Worldwide Church of God is a good example – they became more like the Southern Baptists, but we already had Southern Baptists. What sells is part of it, always has been with successful organizations. If you’re not meeting the needs of the participating members, they’ll meet the needs elsewhere. I’ve offered some additional list items below.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Agreed. I would point out, in defense of the WCoG (now “Grace Communion International”) that they’re not EXACTLY like the Southern Baptists. They managed to keep enough of their own distinctives to keep things interesting and be relevant in the marketplace of ideas.

Johnboy

One of the good things about Mormonism is that once you have done the study to debunk it, you have pretty much done all of the work to debunk theism as well. In fact, the only reason I stayed with Mormonism so long is that all of the other sects and religions didn’t seem to have anything more persuasive. In order to have any interest for me, it would have to be demoted to a charity/social club, some amalgam of the Peace Corps/Scouting/Kiwanis Club, etc. The only interest the bible would have for me is the background to understand historical and literary references in literature.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Thanks for your feedback.

So what’s on your list? In other words, I think that we both agree that there are a lot of good things that are worth keeping so the great challenge becomes: How do you keep the good stuff and jettison the bad stuff without completely destroying the institution?

http://twitter.com/LifeasaReader Carla

I don’t see why the BoM would “of course” be decanonized just because it’s fiction, especially since you’re still calling the Bible an authoritative source.

Prosecution of polygamy is also a really bad idea, and not just because it causes fundamentalist groups to circle the wagons and repress their members ever further, making abuses even more rampant in those communities. It’s also a bad idea because the state has no right to discriminate against the relationships of consenting adults. If you want to prosecute something, prosecute child and domestic abuse. It’s the sickening attitudes toward women and children (as well as the tyrannical “divine” control leaders exert on members) that causes abuse in fundamentalist groups, not polygamy.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

YOU WROTE
“I don’t see why the BoM would “of course” be decanonized just because it’s fiction…”

MY RESPONSE
Please use the provided link and you will find the answer you seek. Here’s a salient citation:

“Most of the posters that no longer believed in the historicity of the Book of Mormon openly admitted that when the Book of Mormon lost it’s historicity for them, it also lost it’s value as scripture worthy of study.”

While some in the thread dispute this thesis the clear consensus is this: When a sacred work claims to be historical, historicity matters.

We also have historical precedence to draw on. “The PIlgrim’s Progress” is one of the most influential works of divine fiction yet no one is mainstream Christianity is calling for it to be added to Biblical Canon. And one could argue that C.S. Lewis’s “The Screwtape Letter” has been equally influential but I don’t hear any calls to have it canonized.

Finally one can consider how the perception of the BoM has changed within the Community of Christ since changed it’s stance regarding it’s historicity. As I recall John Hamer’s answer to John Larsen on this point in the Mormon Expression podcast on the CoC the range runs from “hard core old school” (typically older members who remember the “old” RLDS) to “eye rolls and snickers” (typically the young people).
(listen to http://mormonexpression.com/?p=704 )

YOU RESPONSE
“…especially since you’re still calling the Bible an authoritative source.”

MY RESPONSE
OK, then assume that you’re right – let’s throw the Bible out too. So what are you left with? As I state elsewhere in this thread:

Personally, I think that a logical first step is decriminalizing polygamy so that the stigma of interacting with outsiders is diminished and said abuse finally gets reported to the authorities. However, that too is controversial and, frankly, may not improve things. Conceptually it sounds good but in practice, frankly, it might not work.

Bridgetdonovan

First off, I would have a different list. There’s nothing wrong with the scriptures; it’s the people who are in error. The main thing that needs to be fixed with the LDS Church is the understanding that it’s Jesus Christ who is the head of the church, not some other member of the Godhead. It’s Jesus Christ who is our Lord and Savior, not some other member of the Godhead. It’s Jesus Christ who’s the Everlasting Father. It’s Jesus Christ who is the Most High God.

The scriptures, indeed, are about the God of Israel: Jesus Christ. Putting another member of the Godhead in his place has made the LDS Church fall into blasphemy. I’d say it’s even turned apostate. Certainly it isn’t the church that the Lord established, since no one is even supposed to pray to the Lord anymore. Ask any Christian at any time in history from the days of Adam on to whom we pray, and they would say the Lord Jesus Christ. They’d be right.

But no! In the current LDS Church we’re supposed to think that praying
to the Lord is prohibited, despite the scriptures in which the Lord
commands us to pray to him always. The Lord also chastised Joseph Smith
if he neglected his prayers. And to whom did Joseph Smith pray? He
prayed to the Lord. He even addressed him as Jehovah. Clearly, he prayed
to Jesus Christ.

Then there is the denial that Jesus Christ is both the Father and the Son. Take Peter and Paul and ask them to describe “Heavenly Father” to you … they’d say it’s the Lord. And the Lord is Jesus Christ. Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni would agree with Peter and Paul. But not in the LDS Church. We’re supposed to yank that title away from Jesus Christ and apply it exclusively to another member of the Godhead.

Now I really understand why the Lord said he has to clean out his own house before he can clean out the world.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Thank you Bridget.

Interesting points to be sure – especially in light of the fact that the name of the institution is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And a few years ago they even made the “Jesus Christ” in the logo dominate the rest.

And please feel free to share any of the other items that you have on your list – I’d like to see more and I’m sure I’m not alone in that.

So I herein, through the power invested in me (which ain’t none at all), make you “Mope For A Day”!

So what will you do on the rest for the day Mope Bridget? ;-)

Bryce

My changes would be primarily structural.

1) I would identify the leading structure of the church as the “church council” comprising the first presidency, the relief society presidency, the quorum of the 12 and the 12 member relief society board (which I would rename). I would abolish the concepts of “seniority” and unanimity in the church council. I would eliminate a separate relief society meeting during general conference and alternate Sat evening sessions every six months between a priesthood meeting and a relief society meeting. A a man would not be the last speaker at the relief society meeting and a woman would speak at every priesthood session. Presentations at general conference would be given by equal numbers of men and women. I would give incredibly boring and mundane talks, and I would not speak at every general conference.

2) I would profesionalize the clergy with the hopes of encouraging a diversity of acceptable mormon doctrines and practices. (This would take several years). I would eliminate the seminary and institute prgrams, double the size of the units where possible and uncouple the units from geography (you can attend whatever ward you want). I would pay bishops and open a divinity school at BYU and in every MTC in the world (these would be satellite campuses of the divinity schools). I would encourage the bishops to get a degree. I would eliminate the quorum of the 12 as trustees of BYU in favor of another group of trustees who are primarily academics. I would encourage different schools of thought to be developed in the divinity school. I would maintain all of the other lay positions (bishop’s counselors, sunday school, etc.). I would fold the COB’s correlation employees into the divinity school, and I would have a dozen acceptable (and differen; perhaps even marginally inconsistent) sunday school manuals/etc. I would make it clear that the church council, and not the school was empowered to provide official church positions and publicly emphasize that the purpose of the divinity school is to train bishops in meeting the unique needs of their flock.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

We’re on a roll – another fantastic list. I like it, in fact I love it!

And, of course, I’m interpreting “professionalize the clergy” as meaning that the LdS Church FINALLY publicly acknowledging that LdS clergy receive compensation for their work – and, more importantly, there’s nothing wrong with that.

Of course it’s not currently salaried (which is where the “unpaid clergy” rhetoric has always come from) rather, It comes in the form of stipends, free scholarships for their children to BYU, cars from the church car pool, church housing, free meals at COB, etc., etc., etc.
(all these things are cover in Daimon Smith’s book, “The Book of Mammon”; see http://mormonstories.org/?p=980 ; or http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mammon-About-Corporation-Mormons/dp/1451553706/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311351874&sr=8-1 )

Personally, I would have no problem with LdS Clergy being salaried too – but that’s me.
And as Mormon Studies Scholars have pointed out for years, compensation for a professional clergy is codified in LdS Scripture:

12. And if ye desire the glories of the kingdom, appoint ye my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and uphold him before me by the prayer of faith.

13. And again, I say unto you, that if ye desire the mysteries of the kingdom, provide for him food and raiment, and whatsoever thing he needeth to accomplish the work wherewith I have commanded him.
(Doctrine and Covenants 43:12-13)

71. And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors inall things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecreated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;

72. Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.

73. And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.
(Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 42:71-73)

23. And it shall be for a house for bording, a house that strangers may come from afar to lodge therein; therefore let it be a good house, worthy of all acceptations. . . .

56 And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding house which I have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it be built unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let my servant Joseph and his house have place therein, from generation to generation.
(Doctrine and Covenants 124: 23, 56)

And I hope that none of my mad ramblings distract in any way from your thoughtful and paradigm changing list – it’s quite good, very practical, and evolutionary rather than revolutionary as mine is.

Bryce

No mad ramblings at all! You hit the nail on the head from my perspective: there is nothing wrong with a salaried clergy and, in fact, there are probably some benefits. Also, astute observation regarding the non-salary compensation and the shout out to Damon Smith’s book. By the way, thanks for the blog post – fascinating suggestions, and I like hearing the different perspectives in the comments.

Good post Fred. Obviously you are coming at this from the point of view of a bible believing Christian. I personally see no reason why the bible should be given any more respect than the Book of Mormon. My idea of how I would like to see the church change has more to do with simply acceptance of alternate interpretations of beliefs, rather than denouncing those beliefs outright. I also propose a lot of practical changes. http://outsidethehat.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-church-can-keep-me-in.html

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Oh my, I absolutely love your list! Fantastic!

100% agreement on every point Kyle.

The slight adjustment that I would suggest would be a slow merging of the orthodox and liberal groups so they begin to “leaven” each other. If you listen to Heather’s new podcast “Episode 147: American Grace with David Campbell” he touches on how this was worked in creating a devout, diverse, yet tolerant religious culture in America.

And, yes, I’m just “thick” enough to believe that it could work in the LdS Church as well.

Guest

Is it really necessary to say “Mope” (Mormon Pope)? That phrase suggests an underlying vitriol that clouds any legitimate question you might be asking. It seems that you are either trying to shock, evoke anger, Poke fun, or have a sense of humor that I am not sensitive to. Would anything be lost by asking instead “what would you change if you were the Prophet?”

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

YOU WROTE
“Is it really necessary to say “Mope” (Mormon Pope)?”

MY RESPONSE
No, it wasn’t necessary but it was fun, funny, and playful. And the Colbert piece (please use the provided link – click on the words “Mormon Pope – a la Stephen Colbert” is hilarious).

I’m sorry that you find humor vitriolic, shocking, and angering. However, I might suggest that such thin skinned responses from Mormons is one of the reasons why they’re so distrusted and disliked by the public – if you haven’t listened to Heather’s new podcast, “http://mormonexpression.com/2011/07/21/episode-147-american-grace-with-david-campbell/Episode 147: American Grace with David Campbell”, he touches on this near the end of the interview.

As for being “evocative” I plead guilt. Clearly the intention of the piece is to provoke thought and garner discussion – and it worked.

Now, that said, ”What would you change if you were the Prophet?” – let’s see your list.

Guest

“What would you change if you were the Prophet?”

Whatever God told me to change

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Fair enough.

Do you thing that President Monson has missed anything thus far? If so, what?

Martin Jacobs

Fred,

As you know already, and for the benefit of those who don’t, I’m an NBM (never been Mormon), but you have extended an open invitation, and I’m happy to “turn up”. Even so, I feel something like the guest who is invited by the host to comment on his arrangement of the furniture in his own house. On other words, I fully respect that religious movements should be able to order their own houses as they see fit, even if I don’t like how they do it.

It’s a double-edged sword, however. As soon as a movement claims some connection to Jesus Christ (as the LDS movement does, among others), it absolutely must honor the values and truths that Jesus held to himself. Otherwise, they’re better off ignoring him completely. This is what gives those of us who claim to worship and follow Christ a common language and a common central truth with which to speak to each others’ traditions and movements. (That’s a very long way of saying, “If you claim to be Christian, this is what I expect of you, based on what I know about Christ”.)

I think all of your suggestions are laudable. I particularly like the public accountability angle, because Jesus exposed himself to public scrutiny (by contrast, his enemies operate in secret, at night and in the dark).

However, one question I would like to put to you as a “Mope” (or “Pope”, or even “EvOpe” if there could be such a thing) would be something like this;

Your reforms are focused on organization and practice (praxis); they’re centered on how you do things. This appears to transmit the message that you can get to truth (dogma) from praxis. The Christian revelation has it the other way round – it moves from dogma to praxis. Should you therefore consider your central, unyielding dogmas before figuring out how they should be worked out in practice?

That may seem like a religious and esoteric concern, but here are my observations on how this works;

* The Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:1-17. Notice the order, or flow of thought. It moves from a central, unyielding dogma (there is One God, who claims exclusive possession of His people, Ex 20:1-3) to praxis (do not murder, commit adultery, steal, lie, or covet; Ex 20:13-17).

* Controversially, in this context – the central, unyielding dogma of Mormonism. I know Mormons don’t like being accused of dogma, but it’s there in Mormonism, anyhow. The central dogma of Mormonism is that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and everything else flows from that. Even the Bible and its traditions has been subordinated to this central, unyielding dogma (particularly, the revision of One God to a whole dynasty of distinct “god-beings”).

* How attempts by religious movements to diminish Jesus’ divinity always result in believers having to “earn” their entry into the Kingdom of God (contrary to the Gospel of Grace that the New Testament persistently promotes).

* How polytheism is the Siamese twin of polygamy (wherever you find the one, you’ll find the other)

So, given that your dogma informs your praxis (you do what you do based on what you believe to be true), should you sort out your theology before reforming your church?

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

All good and valid points in my opinion Martin. Thank you for your feedback.

I dearly love to start with #4 and get the Theological problems sorted out first (System Theology in Mormonism THAT would be a first!) however, practically speaking, the LdS Church is so big and monolithic that IMO a lot of the work would have to be like changing the jet engines while in flight.

My two models in this regard are how the Worldwide Church of God and the RLDS reformed themselves. IMO, the RLDS/CoC still has a long way to go before they’re fully Biblically orthodox but they’re certainly a lot further down the road than the LdS Church currently is.

That said, I’m curious, if you were to do your own list as Mope (or EVope if you prefer) what would it look like?

Martin Jacobs

Fred,

I don’t have a formal list, but recently I did find myself thinking “If I were to design a church…”;

1 I would call it 2025. That’s the year we would pack up our bags and tell everyone in the church to move on. The thing is, I would want it to be a huge success, but the problem is stopping it becoming a cult – the Church of Martin. The True Church of Jesus will still be there when my little adventure is over, and churches typically ossify once they become established. So, lets give it a definitive timeframe, and hope that we do what we want to do before time is up.

2 I would emphasize the importance of being ordinary. Christian history has its wonderful heroes (we heard about John Wycliffe, William Wilberforce and Mother Teresa tonight), but God’s kingdom is populated on the most part by ordinary people. It’s Jesus who makes our ordinariness special, not our heroic deeds.

3 I would stick to the fundamentals of pastoral care and never engage in social engineering.

4 As far as church mission is concerned, I would follow the model of Saddleback (?). The lead pastor was once asked how he decided how to direct his congregation. He replied that he didn’t; he allowed his congregants to come to him and if their bright ideas fitted with the mission of Christ, he empowered them to go ahead with them.

5 I’m in two minds about getting a building. Church is a public thing (no secrets) so maybe we should meet in a park, weather permitting.

6 Last, but by no means least, we would teach the Bible within the framework of the historic creeds. We would seek to understand the vision of God that scripture presents, and model all that we do on what we see God doing, rather like John 5:19, which I read to be the Church’s mission statement. In other words, we do what we do because of what we believe to be true.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Great list Martin! I like it.

And one can only wonder what the LdS Church would be like today if Joseph Smith, Jr. had followed your model rather than . . . well now, that’s thought is a future blog for at least one of us isn’t it?

Thank you for your input – great stuff!

http://www.facebook.com/brothercox John Cox

I really like number 10, I think that’d be wonderful if such an aid organization were to come into being.
Number 6 is already being done by the church, espescially in the last few years with the “raising of the bar” Young men are repeatedly told that they should only serve if they truly want to. Now I won’t deny it is taking some church membership to catch up espescially in dense Mormon communities like Spanish Fork Utah, but I think we’re getting there.
I don’t think much would change with 1 and 2.
However, the rest of your ideas I fell would only serve to transform the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into an unrecognizable and small branch of Pentecostal Protestantism. Number 4 and 5 would take care of any unique doctrines we had. And of course any that remained would do so only dubiously.
Taking away the emphasis on personal revelation via 3.4 would take away the special spiritual connection that we have with the Lord.
You would not only lose all of the church welfare farms, canneries, printing presses, and a good deal of the meeting houses, you would also lose most or all of the Temples some communities may strive to keep their beautiful landmarks, but having no practical use they could put it to, except maybe a Library or museum they would be leveled for the most part and replaced with housing developments and shopping malls.
In essennce if you were “Mope” you would take away the beauty, the doctrine, the authority, the uniqueness, and the spirituallity of the Mormon faith. Though I know you would do it with all of the best, albiet misguided, intentions.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Thank you for your thoughts John.

Candidly, I don’t see #3.4 as impacting personal revelation at all and I’m puzzling over why you do. After all mainstream Christianity believes in personal revelation – always has and always will – however, it’s subordinated to the authority of the Bible so that a personal revelation that contradicts the Bible is recognized as false and rejected.

And if you ask any Pentecostal/Charismatic they will happily bore you to tears with all the personal revelations that they’ve been blessed to receive in their lifetime.
(I say this, of course, being a Charismatic so I’m allowed!)
Ditto for any RLDS/CoC member.

YOU WROTE
“However, the rest of your ideas I fell would only serve to transform the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into an unrecognizable and small branch of Pentecostal Protestantism.”

MY RESPONSEI disagree. Consider #4. I think that the LdS Church brings some distinctives to the table that the mainstream Biblical Church would benefit from. And #1 on my “hot list” of Mormon consultants to join the GA and the Biblical Theologians on that august panel would (my hero) Armand Mauss.

If you know anything about Armand, he’s sure to speak his mind AND I don’t know anyone on this planet who understands both good and bad Mormon cultural distinctives better than he.

The result would “interesting” to say the least.

Now that said. What on your list mate?

fredsucks

lol, you might as well start your own church you douchebag. Atleast there people might believe your lies.